Mark Steyn Goes to Washington

by Anniel12/29/15
The New Year is soon here, so I hope this is my last political rant for a long time. Because of the lies and hatred in the present political climate, that undoubtedly will be a resolution difficult to keep.

On December 8, 2015, because of his writings on the subject of Climate Change and his legal battle with Dr. Michael Mann, Climate Change Liar Extraordinaire, Mark Steyn was invited to attend hearings and present testimony on Climate Change before the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, chaired that day by Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX).

Mr. Steyn says that he has met with the Queen of England, several UK MP’s and Prime Ministers, and with Canadian MP’s and representatives. He says that ALL of the listed people met with him as civilized adults, treated him with respect, listened, asked probing pertinent questions, commented without rancor, and generally got along. Steyn, being an adult himself, responded in kind.

Mr. Steyn tells us he has never been treated in the abominable way he was at the U.S. Senate Subcommittee meeting. On the morning of the meeting, Steyn received a message from Senator Bill Nelson (D, Florida), the ranking minority member of the committee, telling him that he, Steyn, would be expected to uphold the “proper decorum” of the Senate at the Subcommittee meeting. In addition to being insulted, Mark’s take is there is no decorum in the Senate to respect, so there is no decorum to uphold.

Also appearing as witnesses were Dr. Judith Currie, Prof. Of Atmospheric Science, GA Institute of Technology; William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton; Prof. John Christy, Creator of the Satellite Temperature Record; and Rear Admiral (Ret.) David W. Titley, Prof. of Practice, Dept. of Meterology, Penn State, who is also a Gung-ho Climate Change believer, at least for public consumption.

Two Greenpeace activists attempted to illegally intimidate Prof. Happer before the meeting was called to order. Such intimidation is called “witness tampering,” and should have been stopped. There are many instances of intimidation against scientists and other so-called “deniers”, sometimes accompanied by threats of RICO indictments and other criminal punishments.

Mr. Steyn’s description of the chaos of the hearing, with people wandering in and out, talking loudly, and never listening to witnesses was shocking to me. Everyone should read Mr. Steyn’s account of the farce billed as “Congressional hearings.” (Citations below.) You will be absolutely enraged.

The tame supposed scientist called by the proponents of global warming and questioned almost exclusively by them, was Rear Admiral Titley. When Senator Brian Shats (D, Hawaii) questioned Titley, Shats even left the room while Titley gave his pap answers, then Shats wandered back in when called by a staff member. When Steyn said he would like to respond, Shats said he didn’t have time and walked out, so Steyn went ahead and made his comments to Shats’ empty chair.

The worst person in the room was apparently Senator Ed Markey (D, Massachussets). He did his best to insult Dr. Curry, never giving her a chance to respond to his accusations, or to even state her position on the matter. When she attempted to defend herself and answer his assertions, Markey said he hadn’t asked her a question. Steyn finally had had enough and interrupted, in fact almost brought the meeting to a halt, when he asked why Dr. Curry couldn’t respond when Markey had impugned her character, her knowledge and her honesty. First he, and then Curry, went on the offensive demanding that Dr. Curry be allowed to answer the questions directed to her and defend her scientific conclusions.

Mr. Steyn told Senator Markey that since he had deliberately insulted the distinguished scientist, he owed her the respect to let her answer without interruption. It turned out that Markey had not even read Prof. Curry’s position paper she had prepared for the hearing. Steyn and Prof. Curry both spoke until the meeting was adjourned for a break. Sen. Markey left and never returned. Steyn refers to him now as the coward and bully “Markey Mark,” who runs away when confronted.

Everyone to that point had totally ignored Prof. Happer. and Prof. Christy.
They, too, took the opportunity to present their prepared testimony. Steyn says he was proud of them for standing for truth. Steyn was told that the protest made by them was the first time in 200 years that private citizens had dared question committee members. He says we ought not let another 200 years pass before we speak out again.

One of the reasons Steyn says the committees get away with such outrageous behavior is that the cameras are kept exclusively on the person testifying, so the crude and disrespectable antics of committee members are never seen on C-Span. And those idiots are the “knowledgeable” elite representing us. It seems that almost all witnesses appearing before any Congressional committee complain that no one ever listens to their testimony, so why bother? By the way, who pays for witnesses to travel to D.C.?

In his second column about this hearing, Steyn says that the reason the Democrats commandeered the meeting is because the Republicans just never showed up, while the Democrats at least did that. The Subcommittee members, with their attendance at the meeting noted, are as given below.

+In attendance all day
*In attendance at least part of the day
#No Shows

(Note 1, Daines and Gardner were present only long enough to be recorded for the folks back home.) (Note 2, According to Steyn, Sullivan was not in attendance, but a report in wattsupwiththat.com says he made a statement. It’s possible he may have put in an appearance and Steyn didn’t know who he was, but he did not remain at the meeting.)

While they were disrespectful idiots and wandering in and out, at least some of the Democrats were present, participating and prepared to state their position. But the Republicans didn’t care enough to even show up, or remain. Senator Cruz had only himself to depend on and try to present a rational review of the climate change debate.

We need to pay more attention to the beleaguered witnesses who take their precious time to appear before government bodies and demand that they and their testimony be respected. Congress is corrupt in so many ways. Too bad, but perhaps not surprising, that most of Congressmen and women have forgotten basic good manners. Let their families be ashamed of them.

Whether it was dislike of Cruz that kept Republicans away from the meeting or they just really don’t care about the Climate Change issue, is of little matter. Congress again tarnished its behavior in the eyes of the people who DO matter, the voters, who are citizens of the United States of America.

* * * *
Read the full text of Mark Steyn’s articles and see what you think. Go to:

31 Responses to Mark Steyn Goes to Washington

Of course, I’ve already read Steyn’s accounts, since I check steynonline every day. I rather liked the way he and Dr. Curry turned the tables on Markey. And I agree that it says a great thing about most of the Republicans that they failed to show up, leaving the Demagogues effectively in charge of the hearing.

Note that there are plenty of other skeptical scientists who could have been called — Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, Christopher De Freitas (who did the article on climate change skeptics for the Salem Press environmental encyclopedia for which I did 4 articles, including the one on global warming), Roy Spencer, and the former state climatologists in Delaware, Oregon, and Washington who were attacked for their skepticism by Democrat governors (which also happened to Michaels in Virginia). Among others.

One reason for my increasing skepticism is the nature of the arguments for global warming aka climate change. Hiding key evidence, proclaiming false and irrelevant consensus, claiming the science is settled (which can be true of factual evidence, but never of theories), and threatening skeptics are the acts of cultists and authoritarian politicians, not scientists.

Timothy, I knew you would have read Steyn’s accounts of the meeting, but I was so distressed by reading both articles I could scream. Then you hear stories by people who have lost loved ones to illegal alien activity, or who appear at the Benghazi hearings, and realize they, too, get tuned out, and even called liars. How DARE Congress, and Hillary, act in such a hurtful and cavalier fashion?

The question that haunts me most is WHY those in the beltway fail to see their own peril. I still cannot comprehend their blindness.

Mr. Lane,
Since, yet again, another post of yours strikes me as having a volume of research behind it, i’m a bit curious of the following.
After NRO sold out Mr Stein over this BS lawsuit, did they grow an ounce of shame over it? I have doubts. (I just have doubts you posted on NRO to find out.)

There were many people (including me) complaining on NRO after Steyn’s weekly article stopped appearing. Of course, very few NRO writers respond to the bloggers, so we never got an explanation or any other comments.

I think every culture and subculture has certain forbidden words and language. We even have a few here (such as “I hate Frank Sinatra”). But in the spirit of free speech, the give-and-take of intercourse, and just plain good manners, we try not to freak out if someone tells an old Bob Hope “fruit cordial” joke. Still, good manners means using Def Con Level 4 or 5 words instead of Level 1 or 2 words if at all possible (although I don’t always succeed myself).

Steyn’s sin was to prick the bubble of moral superiority that Establishment Republicans think they have. They are of the mind that “conservatives” are those unwashed masses (not as smart as NRO staff, for sure) who just can’t help being a little uncouth. If the Party could just get these people to shut up and stop embarrassing everyone with their racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc., then the Party could win election after election.

So the Establishment Republicans have taken it as a maxim that they need to be “nice” to everyone. They need to “reach out.” They need to do all the candy-ass buzzword things except stand up for conservative/American principles (doing so might, after all, upset someone).

They may indeed have been cowards. I don’t discount that at all. But it would also help to understand this “reach out” nonsense they have which really means letting the Left set the standard for political discourse. Picture Establishment Republicans in a studded dog collar in some kind of submissive S&M relationship with the Democrats who are their masters and are holding the whip.

Actually, the “fruit cordial” joke, according to Steyn, was by Sinatra. That should make it doubly appropriate for you. (I like Frank Sinatra, but probably no more than Nancy, and less than either Karen Carpenter or Dame Petula).

Steyn and Cruz made minced meat out of the Dem fools and knaves on the committee. I recall listening to a snippet of what Cruz said at Breitbart. And as I recall, Steyn’s article made Markey look like the ass that he truly is.

I am reminded of the Senate hearings on the Bork nomination. I happened to be in country while there were going on and Bork made Teddy and the rest look like fools. But the fools and knaves still won. That is what we must be on guard against.

Bork & Mary Jo both exposed that blow-hard Kennedy for the trash he was. Only problem, as usual, was the press refused to expose it to us.

Kennedy’s tough shit for the testimony from that scuba diver; something that so nullified the pathetic musings from that sympathetic fellow liberal who trafficed in that “computer model” defense. (Liberals so wanna love the lie. They just can’t help themselves.)

Waaaayyyy off topic, but my friend used to have a bumper sticker that said “More People Died At Chappaquiddick Than Three Mile Island.”

Then again, since the topic is “Ignore the fact that I’m a giant corrupt sleezebag and get all worked up about a non-existent problem in order to severely damage the economy,” maybe it’s not off topic.

Not off-topic at all. Not only is it anti-Kennedy, but it’s also pro-nuclear. Note that if global warming aka climate change were truly our most serious environmental problem (and by a wide margin), nuclear power would be one of the solutions — but it isn’t, because the eco-zealots are concerned about mass consumerism, not the environment.

There’s a distinct unreality — let alone smugness — to the Left. One of their primary character traits is ignorance bolstered by the conceit of their own smartness…a belief that is generally unmerited. The way this affirmative action crowd (white or black, they believe they are “special” beyond merit) keeps up this conceit is by treating everyone else like an idiot.

As for the Republicans, one should not assume that they are all that bright. Certainly most of them are cowards. Most of these flakes have gone to the same Ivy League schools where they learned the same Cultural Marxism, including one of the main attacks on the industrialized West: “climate change.” They either believe it or because they assume most people do, they don’t want to appear to be one of the “anti-science” rubes. And you can bet that quite a few believe that those who don’t believe in global warming are anti-science rubes. They sneer at you as well.

The whole lot needs to be cleaned out with a few exceptions. These are not good men and women. The worst of the worst has made its way to the halls of power. They are a reflection upon us.

A better argument for repeal of the 17th amendment could not be made. Its not that our senators are political hacks, that should be a given, but there is no way to remove them from office except death. In the case of Robert Byrd not even that.

The founders intent was that the senate represent the interests of the sovereign states and not the polarity of the voters in the states. Its time we returned to that idea.

There is not much value in “I told you so.” But it’s particularly apt in the case of Paul Ryan. Why do we so often fall for these frauds? But we continue to do so. At least with Trump, we can know he’s fairly liberal on most subjects. I don’t think he’s hiding that. I think he’s on board with the global warming fraud and various other pop-culture beliefs that derive from Cultural Marxism (the attack on anything and everything that has ever underpinned Western Civilization).

But at least he seems to also recognize the frauds, fakes, and philanderers we have in public office. And we put them there. Shame on us. And yet, to be fair, time after time these guys swear fealty to conservative principles before entering office. What else is there to gauge them by? But once in office, they suddenly find reasons to abandon those principles…assuming they were being honest to begin with.

DC is corrupt, in part because we have become a lazy, corrupt people. They’re playing us. They have contempt for us. And we have not given them much sign that we should be above their contempt. We keep falling for the same lines.

But forewarned is forearmed. Don’t doubt me. Carly Fiorina is Paul Ryan in drag. I hope Ted Cruz is the next president. But I don’t care if Donald Trump walks down Park Avenue dressed as a peacock. He’ll get my vote. He’s the only hammer, other than Cruz, that we have at the moment. He may be a blunt instrument, but we have at least some reason to suspect that he wouldn’t instantly cave to the Washington Establishment mentality.

And…hell…I’ll throw a bone to Libertarians. Trump should consider making Paul the Secretary of Defense. Despite some of his nutty ideas, he’s sounded saner than most of these candidates. And compared to the thoroughly corrupt Clinton, he’s practically Thomas Jefferson.

I first noticed the cartoon strip One Big Happy from a copy a friend sent me of a strip in which the girl, Ruthie, mentioned how much she didn’t like politicians she saw on TV. Her grandfather said no one did — and when she asked how they got in, he replied that they had been elected. Ruthie was stunned, and observed that grown-ups weren’t as smart as she had thought.

Midway down the page are a couple of clips from Steyn’s Senate hearing. Each clip is a little over 5 minutes long. The only other time I have seen witnesses going after government committees in this way is when I saw some old clips of Howard Huges taking several politicians apart when they questioned him on something or other.

Oh. I forgot to mention that this article helped remove doubts i had about Ted Cruz.
That punk Dewhurst was nothing more than a slandering idiot. (Only the election in Mississippi was worse . . . very worse.)

He argues that, not only is CO2 not a pollutant, but that without it the planet will DIE! In fact, we would be better off with increased amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere. The lecture is named, “Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?” And the answer to the question is, “Yes!”

An idea for a provocative bumper sticker is forming in my head – Save the Planet! Burn Coal!

Plants photosynthesize by taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and emtting oxygen. Animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. This is why I suggest that the climate zealots provide a good example by ceasing to exhale carbon dioxide. And that’s a nice bumper sticker. I’ll bet something like that is already in use here in Kentucky.

I agree. But in my understanding, carbon dioxide is much more on an effect than a cause in regards to how hot or cold the planet is. When the climate warms (for whatever reason…the cycles of the sun — particularly sunspot activity — is likely the most prominent one) the oceans release CO2. When the planet cools, the oceans absorb CO2. This is what the ice core samples have shown. It was first thought that the CO2 was the cause of the warming or the cooling. But what was discovered was that there was a lag. The CO2 went up or down but lagged after the actual temperature changes.

But certainly a slightly warming earth would be good for most people all around. Good for crops. Good for plants. Good for animals. Cooler temperatures are hell (ironically). I just doubt that dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere would have any negligible change. In my understanding, CO2 has a greenhouse effect on only a very slim portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and that once that spectrum is saturated (which it apparently is right now), you can pump all the CO2 into the air that you want and it won’t change a thing other than bunching the panties of the alarmists.

Okie doke. That’s good to hear. I can’t say that I’m as up on the latest science as much as most of the population is up on the latest pseudo-science. A lot of garbage to have to sift through these days. 🙂

The greenhouse effect is real, and in fact was discovered by Swedish chemist (and Nobel laureate, though not for that) Svante Arrhenius over a century ago. The crucial error the alarmists make (to the extent that the problem is error and not dishonesty) is that there the law of diminishing returns applies here, as I learned when I was researching the topic for my Salem Press article. Carbon dioxide and water vapor block the same infrared wavelengths, so (given the normal level of water vapor in the atmosphere) the effect of additional carbon dioxide on warming is probably minimal in most parts of the world (except maybe the Atacama Desert).

Roy Spencer says that CO2 is a negligible greenhouse gas, and water vapor is the main one. Don’t let the climate alarmists find out – they’ll want to drain the oceans and shoot them by rocket into the sun!

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.